Thursday, March 30, 2017

"Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with the National Interest Magazine, published on March 29, 2017". He doesn't seem to be upset at current American treachery, but is clearly still angry about Barry's treachery ("But let God judge him."):

"“Normal” is to treat your partners with respect, not to try to impose some of your ideas on others without taking into account their own views and their concerns, always to try to listen and to hear, and hopefully not to rely on a superiority complex, which was obviously the case with the Obama administration. They were obsessed with their exceptionality, with their leadership. Actually the founding fathers of the United States, they also spoke of their leadership, and they believed that the American nation was exceptional, but they wanted others just to take the American experience as an example and to follow suit. They never suggested that the United States should impose, including by force, its values on others.

And the Obama administration was clearly different. Actually, long before Ukraine, long before Crimea, in early December 2012, there was an OSCE ministerial meeting in Dublin. And Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State and was the head of the delegation, we had a bilateral meeting with her, she was trying to persuade me on something which was a difficult issue on the agenda, but I recall this situation because in the margins of this ministerial meeting she attended a meeting in the University of Dublin, and she delivered a lecture in which she said something like: “We are trying to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent the move to re-Sovietize the former Soviet space.” December 2012.

What kind of action she was considering as the move to re-Sovietize the space, I really couldn’t understand. Yes, there were discussions about Ukraine, about Kazakhstan, Belarus and Russia, forming the Customs Union, and if this was the reason, then of course it showed very obviously the real attitude of the Obama administration to what was going on in the former Soviet space and the area of the Commonwealth of Independent States, its obvious desire to take over this geopolitical space around Russia without even caring what Moscow might think.

This was the reason for the crisis in Ukraine, when the U.S. and European Union bluntly told the Ukrainians: either you are with us, or you are with Russia against us. And the very fragile Ukrainian state couldn’t sustain this kind of pressure, and what happened- happened: the coup, and so on and so forth (if you want I can discuss this in some detail later). But my point is that they considered normal that the people in Obama’s team should call the shots anywhere, including around such a big country as the Russian Federation. And this is absolutely abnormal in my view.

At the same time, when we visited Venezuela with our naval ships, they were raising such hell, as if no one could even get closer to what they believe should be their backyard. This mentality is not adequate for the twenty-first century. And we of course notice that President Trump is emphasizing the need to concentrate on U.S. interests. And foreign policy for him is important as long as it serves the United States’ interests, not just some messiah projects doing something just for the sake of showing that you can do it anywhere. It’s irrational, and in this he certainly holds the same position as we do in Moscow, as President Putin does, that we don’t want to meddle in other people’s matters. When the Russian legitimate interests are not, you know involved."

"The Israeli Plan To Capitalize On Syria’s Civil War". When you look up chutzpah in the dictionary, there is no definition, just a link to this article. Don't fret, it's only another 'dozens of billions of dollars' from the American goyim to consolidate the Khazar theft of the Golan.

"But the above articles, both from myself and now from Peter Beinart, explain not only how Jewish lobbies such as AIPAC have managed to dominate American and British foreign affairs, but also how the same kind of people have also managed to dominate any resistance to AIPAC. Because by now, it is anti-AIPAC Jews, rather than the American people who lead any opposition to the foreign lobby that pushes America into global disastrous conflicts. The meaning of this is as simple as it is devastating: AIPAC and the opposition to AIPAC are now both an internal Jewish affair. Goyim are simply excluded.

Exactly the same happened to the Palestinian Solidarity movement which is now dominated by Jewish lobbies and activists (JVP, IJAN, Mondoweiss etc') . Once again, Zionism and Israeli criminality and the opposition to Zionism and Israeli criminality, have both been reduced into Jewish internal affairs - with the result that the discourse of the oppressed (the Palestinians) is now shaped by the sensitivities of the oppressors.

But this should not take us by surprise. Two thousand years of imaginary ‘diaspora’, pathological victimhood and fake news have led to the emergence of a radical exilic culture, highly skilled and sophisticated in hegemony tactics and power strategies. What’s not to like?"

The fundamentals of 'lite Zionism'! An example of Atzmon's point: "Palestinian-American teacher brutally attacked by Jewish Defense League outside AIPAC conference". The deceit here is that this kind of violent racist supremacism is some kind of aberration amongst the Khazars. Miraculously, two terrorists were apparently arrested (I assume they will soon be officially vindicated with abject apologies from the Jew-controlled New York politicians), but now without some typical drama (my emphasis in red):

"Speaking via phone with +972 Magazine, Danya Nayfeh said she had to repeatedly plead with police to arrest her father’s attackers, screaming “who did this?” and that officers threatened to arrest her instead for if she didn’t stop demanding they take action against the JDL men. She said the first people to pull JDL guys off her dad were other protesters, she assumes from IfNotNow."

It appears likely there were arrests only because another group of Jews insisted upon it, thus confirming the complete Jewish domination of the issue.

Rhetorical question: "Does Washington Want to Start a New War in the Balkans?"

"El Salvador bans metalic mining". Good plan for the rest of the despoiled world.

"Video shows Kellie Leitch at ‘deeply troubling’ meeting with group that called for ban on Muslims". Canadian 'anti-sharia law' group. Who do you think is funding them? Go on, take a wild guess!

"Richard Posner: “The Real Corruption Is the Ownership of Congress by the Rich”". A man who really, really, really lacks any smidgen of self-awareness. An entire 'illustrious' career built on applying 'economics', i.e., 1% power propaganda, to legal decision making. What a piece of shit!

"Reimagining China and Asia" (Freeman). Extremely informed analysis of Chinese diplomacy (don't forget who is responsible for the loss of all that expertise):

"Unlike most other countries, Beijing habitually applies economic sanctions without announcing, confirming, or denying them. It sets no specific conditions for ending them. This allows China’s leaders to adjust or end its coercive measures without being held to account for their results or the lack thereof. The imprecision of Chinese demands leaves the target of these measures to guess what it must do end them. This puts the onus for a solution on the victim of Chinese pressure and sometimes leads to factions within it negotiating among themselves rather than with China about what might satisfy Beijing."

Case and Deaton: "Mortality and morbidity in the 21st century" (I would call it 'cumulative disappointment'):

". . . a preliminary but plausible account of what is happening; according to this, deaths of despair come from a long-standing process of cumulative disadvantage for those with less than a college degree. The story is rooted in the labor market, but involves many aspects of life, including health in childhood, marriage, child rearing, and religion. Although we do not see the supply of opioids as the fundamental factor, the prescription of opioids for chronic pain added fuel to the flames, making the epidemic much worse than it otherwise would have been. If our overall account is correct, the epidemic will not be easily or quickly reversed by policy, nor can those in midlife today be expected to do as well after age 65 as do the current elderly. This does not mean that nothing can be done. Controlling opioids is an obvious priority, as is trying to counter the negative effects of a poor labor market on marriage, perhaps through better safety nets for mothers with children."

"Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with the National Interest Magazine, published on March 29, 2017". He doesn't seem to be upset at current American treachery, but is clearly still angry about Barry's treachery ("But let God judge him."):

"“Normal” is to treat your partners with respect, not to try to impose some of your ideas on others without taking into account their own views and their concerns, always to try to listen and to hear, and hopefully not to rely on a superiority complex, which was obviously the case with the Obama administration. They were obsessed with their exceptionality, with their leadership. Actually the founding fathers of the United States, they also spoke of their leadership, and they believed that the American nation was exceptional, but they wanted others just to take the American experience as an example and to follow suit. They never suggested that the United States should impose, including by force, its values on others.

And the Obama administration was clearly different. Actually, long before Ukraine, long before Crimea, in early December 2012, there was an OSCE ministerial meeting in Dublin. And Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State and was the head of the delegation, we had a bilateral meeting with her, she was trying to persuade me on something which was a difficult issue on the agenda, but I recall this situation because in the margins of this ministerial meeting she attended a meeting in the University of Dublin, and she delivered a lecture in which she said something like: “We are trying to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent the move to re-Sovietize the former Soviet space.” December 2012.

What kind of action she was considering as the move to re-Sovietize the space, I really couldn’t understand. Yes, there were discussions about Ukraine, about Kazakhstan, Belarus and Russia, forming the Customs Union, and if this was the reason, then of course it showed very obviously the real attitude of the Obama administration to what was going on in the former Soviet space and the area of the Commonwealth of Independent States, its obvious desire to take over this geopolitical space around Russia without even caring what Moscow might think.

This was the reason for the crisis in Ukraine, when the U.S. and European Union bluntly told the Ukrainians: either you are with us, or you are with Russia against us. And the very fragile Ukrainian state couldn’t sustain this kind of pressure, and what happened- happened: the coup, and so on and so forth (if you want I can discuss this in some detail later). But my point is that they considered normal that the people in Obama’s team should call the shots anywhere, including around such a big country as the Russian Federation. And this is absolutely abnormal in my view.

At the same time, when we visited Venezuela with our naval ships, they were raising such hell, as if no one could even get closer to what they believe should be their backyard. This mentality is not adequate for the twenty-first century. And we of course notice that President Trump is emphasizing the need to concentrate on U.S. interests. And foreign policy for him is important as long as it serves the United States’ interests, not just some messiah projects doing something just for the sake of showing that you can do it anywhere. It’s irrational, and in this he certainly holds the same position as we do in Moscow, as President Putin does, that we don’t want to meddle in other people’s matters. When the Russian legitimate interests are not, you know involved."

"The Israeli Plan To Capitalize On Syria’s Civil War". When you look up chutzpah in the dictionary, there is no definition, just a link to this article. Don't fret, it's only another 'dozens of billions of dollars' from the American goyim to consolidate the Khazar theft of the Golan.

"But the above articles, both from myself and now from Peter Beinart, explain not only how Jewish lobbies such as AIPAC have managed to dominate American and British foreign affairs, but also how the same kind of people have also managed to dominate any resistance to AIPAC. Because by now, it is anti-AIPAC Jews, rather than the American people who lead any opposition to the foreign lobby that pushes America into global disastrous conflicts. The meaning of this is as simple as it is devastating: AIPAC and the opposition to AIPAC are now both an internal Jewish affair. Goyim are simply excluded.

Exactly the same happened to the Palestinian Solidarity movement which is now dominated by Jewish lobbies and activists (JVP, IJAN, Mondoweiss etc') . Once again, Zionism and Israeli criminality and the opposition to Zionism and Israeli criminality, have both been reduced into Jewish internal affairs - with the result that the discourse of the oppressed (the Palestinians) is now shaped by the sensitivities of the oppressors.

But this should not take us by surprise. Two thousand years of imaginary ‘diaspora’, pathological victimhood and fake news have led to the emergence of a radical exilic culture, highly skilled and sophisticated in hegemony tactics and power strategies. What’s not to like?"

The fundamentals of 'lite Zionism'! An example of Atzmon's point: "Palestinian-American teacher brutally attacked by Jewish Defense League outside AIPAC conference". The deceit here is that this kind of violent racist supremacism is some kind of aberration amongst the Khazars. Miraculously, two terrorists were apparently arrested (I assume they will soon be officially vindicated with abject apologies from the Jew-controlled New York politicians), but now without some typical drama (my emphasis in red):

"Speaking via phone with +972 Magazine, Danya Nayfeh said she had to repeatedly plead with police to arrest her father’s attackers, screaming “who did this?” and that officers threatened to arrest her instead for if she didn’t stop demanding they take action against the JDL men. She said the first people to pull JDL guys off her dad were other protesters, she assumes from IfNotNow."

It appears likely there were arrests only because another group of Jews insisted upon it, thus confirming the complete Jewish domination of the issue.

Rhetorical question: "Does Washington Want to Start a New War in the Balkans?"

"El Salvador bans metalic mining". Good plan for the rest of the despoiled world.

"Video shows Kellie Leitch at ‘deeply troubling’ meeting with group that called for ban on Muslims". Canadian 'anti-sharia law' group. Who do you think is funding them? Go on, take a wild guess!

"Richard Posner: “The Real Corruption Is the Ownership of Congress by the Rich”". A man who really, really, really lacks any smidgen of self-awareness. An entire 'illustrious' career built on applying 'economics', i.e., 1% power propaganda, to legal decision making. What a piece of shit!

"Reimagining China and Asia" (Freeman). Extremely informed analysis of Chinese diplomacy (don't forget who is responsible for the loss of all that expertise):

"Unlike most other countries, Beijing habitually applies economic sanctions without announcing, confirming, or denying them. It sets no specific conditions for ending them. This allows China’s leaders to adjust or end its coercive measures without being held to account for their results or the lack thereof. The imprecision of Chinese demands leaves the target of these measures to guess what it must do end them. This puts the onus for a solution on the victim of Chinese pressure and sometimes leads to factions within it negotiating among themselves rather than with China about what might satisfy Beijing."

Case and Deaton: "Mortality and morbidity in the 21st century" (I would call it 'cumulative disappointment'):

". . . a preliminary but plausible account of what is happening; according to this, deaths of despair come from a long-standing process of cumulative disadvantage for those with less than a college degree. The story is rooted in the labor market, but involves many aspects of life, including health in childhood, marriage, child rearing, and religion. Although we do not see the supply of opioids as the fundamental factor, the prescription of opioids for chronic pain added fuel to the flames, making the epidemic much worse than it otherwise would have been. If our overall account is correct, the epidemic will not be easily or quickly reversed by policy, nor can those in midlife today be expected to do as well after age 65 as do the current elderly. This does not mean that nothing can be done. Controlling opioids is an obvious priority, as is trying to counter the negative effects of a poor labor market on marriage, perhaps through better safety nets for mothers with children."